4 ms·

Maybe we are thinking of "scientific" in different terms, but I know lots of things that are not scientific. I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scie

Maybe we are thinking of "scientific" in different terms, but I know lots of things that are not scientific. I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. My internal experiences aren't scientific. So I'd say that, on one sense, at least half of what I experience is not scientific. No one actually knows what is going on inside of my head at this moment. Yet I know my own thoughts, emotions and experiences. Science may know that I can experience love, for example. But it can't tell me that I am experiencing love at this moment, as I write this comment, or who I fall in love with.

inavat 14y ago
That science can't yet know you're experiencing love at this moment (if indeed that's the case) isn't a reason to think it never will be able to. I know it's common to think of our internal thoughts and experiences as metaphysical things, but I know of no evidence that they're anything but chemical and physical processes. You know, science.
- webnrrd2k 14y ago
  Oh, I'm not saying that thoughts and experiences aren't physical things -- I didn't mean to imply otherwise. The question I was responding to was: "Show me something that's not science that we know". My response is that there are lots of things that we, as people, actually know but can't study scientifically.
  - rohern 14y ago
    Love and emotions are being studied scientifically. The neurotransmitters behind love and affection are extremely well studied. One could quite easily construct experiments to see if exiting fMRI technology can determine the difference between a brain experiencing love and one not. These questions are in every way within the domain of science.
    - thirdtruck 14y ago
      Exactly, rohern. Just look at the findings on oxytocin. Even more to the point: the impetus lies with the proponents of "love as a useful, concrete object" to defend their hypothesis from dissection by neuroscientists. Linguistic and poetic convention have no hold over hard data.
    - MrScruff 14y ago
      While this is all true, it wouldn't tell us much about the actual experience of feeling the emotion. That would remain metaphysical.
      - rohern 14y ago
        I do not see any reason to suppose this is true. I grant that this is question that is not being tackled by current research (as far as I know, as neuroscience and theoretical neuroscience are in a period of boom right now), but that does not make it scientifically intractable. There is little I can say about this as I do not know what you mean by "the actual experience".
        MrScruff 14y ago
        As in, the difference between the neurological processes that govern ones mental state, and the subjective experience of having that mental state. For example, if I'm hungry and eat a good meal the changes in my brain chemistry that induce the sense of well being that follows are well understood. That doesn't tell me anything at all about the actual subjective experience of feeling pleasure though. That is something distinct.
        rohern 14y ago
        Is it? The signals in your nervous system that give you the sensation of pain are pain. Let me make an argument by analogy. You are saying that understanding the chip architecture and the instruction set of a computer does not allow you to understand what it is like for that chip to run a given program. Is that a fair analogy? Can you improve it? If this is a fair analogy, then I think it is clear that you are wrong. We absolutely can understand what running a given program is like. We may need to use a different vocabulary and abstract away detail in order to efficiently communicate the idea of running the program (say, talk about a data structure rather than the individual bits that compose it), but that is true in every field. This is basic tool of reasoning. If that is not a good analogy, please let me know how. I am not satisfied at all that I understand what you mean when you write "the actual subjective experience". I understand what those words mean but I cannot match them with an object.
derleth 14y ago
> I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. Do you think they'll remain unscientific?
- webnrrd2k 14y ago
  I don't know if they will become scientific or not. I wasn't trying to speculate about the future, just to point out that there are lots of things that people know but can't prove in a scientific sense. As a matter of fact, there is an interesting book about it: [What We Believe but Cannot Prove](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prov...). Just off the top of my head, I'd say the most obvious thing that people know that isn't scientific is to make creative leaps and discover/invent new ideas. Science can tell us a lot about how it happens, but there is no scientific formula for creating new, true, useful, or provocative ideas. When people make a creative leap, do they know it's true, in the scientific sense? Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method.
  - thirdtruck 14y ago
    Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method. Demonstrably false. Going by Steve Martin's autobiography, as just one example, stand-up comics routinely submit their new material to controlled tests with sample audiences. Jokes (and performance details) that fail to elicit laughter and post-show satisfaction (i.e. as practical a demonstration of "funny" as any), are judged provably false and left out of the routine.

inavat 14y ago

That science can't yet know you're experiencing love at this moment (if indeed that's the case) isn't a reason to think it never will be able to. I know it's common to think of our internal thoughts and experiences as metaphysical things, but I know of no evidence that they're anything but chemical and physical processes. You know, science.

webnrrd2k 14y ago
Oh, I'm not saying that thoughts and experiences aren't physical things -- I didn't mean to imply otherwise. The question I was responding to was: "Show me something that's not science that we know". My response is that there are lots of things that we, as people, actually know but can't study scientifically.
- rohern 14y ago
  Love and emotions are being studied scientifically. The neurotransmitters behind love and affection are extremely well studied. One could quite easily construct experiments to see if exiting fMRI technology can determine the difference between a brain experiencing love and one not. These questions are in every way within the domain of science.
  - thirdtruck 14y ago
    Exactly, rohern. Just look at the findings on oxytocin. Even more to the point: the impetus lies with the proponents of "love as a useful, concrete object" to defend their hypothesis from dissection by neuroscientists. Linguistic and poetic convention have no hold over hard data.
  - MrScruff 14y ago
    While this is all true, it wouldn't tell us much about the actual experience of feeling the emotion. That would remain metaphysical.
    - rohern 14y ago
      I do not see any reason to suppose this is true. I grant that this is question that is not being tackled by current research (as far as I know, as neuroscience and theoretical neuroscience are in a period of boom right now), but that does not make it scientifically intractable. There is little I can say about this as I do not know what you mean by "the actual experience".
      - MrScruff 14y ago
        As in, the difference between the neurological processes that govern ones mental state, and the subjective experience of having that mental state. For example, if I'm hungry and eat a good meal the changes in my brain chemistry that induce the sense of well being that follows are well understood. That doesn't tell me anything at all about the actual subjective experience of feeling pleasure though. That is something distinct.
        rohern 14y ago
        Is it? The signals in your nervous system that give you the sensation of pain are pain. Let me make an argument by analogy. You are saying that understanding the chip architecture and the instruction set of a computer does not allow you to understand what it is like for that chip to run a given program. Is that a fair analogy? Can you improve it? If this is a fair analogy, then I think it is clear that you are wrong. We absolutely can understand what running a given program is like. We may need to use a different vocabulary and abstract away detail in order to efficiently communicate the idea of running the program (say, talk about a data structure rather than the individual bits that compose it), but that is true in every field. This is basic tool of reasoning. If that is not a good analogy, please let me know how. I am not satisfied at all that I understand what you mean when you write "the actual subjective experience". I understand what those words mean but I cannot match them with an object.

derleth 14y ago

> I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. Do you think they'll remain unscientific?

webnrrd2k 14y ago
I don't know if they will become scientific or not. I wasn't trying to speculate about the future, just to point out that there are lots of things that people know but can't prove in a scientific sense. As a matter of fact, there is an interesting book about it: [What We Believe but Cannot Prove](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prov...). Just off the top of my head, I'd say the most obvious thing that people know that isn't scientific is to make creative leaps and discover/invent new ideas. Science can tell us a lot about how it happens, but there is no scientific formula for creating new, true, useful, or provocative ideas. When people make a creative leap, do they know it's true, in the scientific sense? Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method.
- thirdtruck 14y ago
  Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method. Demonstrably false. Going by Steve Martin's autobiography, as just one example, stand-up comics routinely submit their new material to controlled tests with sample audiences. Jokes (and performance details) that fail to elicit laughter and post-show satisfaction (i.e. as practical a demonstration of "funny" as any), are judged provably false and left out of the routine.